Francisco Santana-Quintero v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCISCO SANTANA-QUINTERO,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
No. 08-74678
Agency No. A039-717-782
MEMORANDUM*
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted May 15, 2012**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Francisco Santana-Quintero, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se
for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order denying his
motion to reopen and reconsider on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of
FILED
MAY 25 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

08-74678 2
discretion the denial of a motion to reconsider and reopen, and review de novo due
process claims. Mohammed v. Gonzales, 400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005).
We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.
The BIA did not abuse its discretion in denying Santana-Quintero’s motion
to reopen and reconsider because Santana-Quintero failed to establish that the
alleged ineffective assistance of his former attorneys may have affected the
outcome of his proceedings. See id. at 793-94 (to prevail on an ineffective
assistance of counsel claim, a petitioner must demonstrate prejudice); Mielewczyk
v. Holder, 575 F.3d 992, 995-98 (9th Cir. 2009) (a conviction for violating
California Health & Safety Code § 11352 constitutes a removable controlled
substance offense where the record of conviction establishes that the offense
involved cocaine).
We lack jurisdiction to review Santana-Quintero’s contention that he
qualifies for relief under former section 212(c), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(c) (repealed
1996), because he failed to exhaust this claim in his motion to reopen and
reconsider. See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2004).
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

-- 2 of 2 --